Something I noticed in the last clip you posted, and in this one, is how expressive his eyeballs are. They almost pop out when he wants them to! He's even acting and making expression when nobody is watching him (for his back is turned to Norton and Alice isn't in the room)

As a kid, I must have watched Hercules at least 100 times, I swear, I'd see that movie EVERYDAY, along with my 40s PD tapes, and Space Jam, as well.

One question I would have when you point out how important it is to have good reaction in characters, is that as fun as it is for us to make or do, how do you draw the line when it comes to upstaging?

That is, is there a big broad grey area when it comes to how much reaction we should build into performances so that they do not distract from information or a more important character? I remember taking some acting courses as a kid and among the actors teaching us, upstaging is about as mortal a sin as one can commit on stage, and all it takes is a viewing of Steve McQueen in The Magnificent Seven for evidence.

I suppose if it doesn't add to the character thats being conveyed, it's upstaging, period? I guess Im answering my own question

I'm sorry, but I still can't see the acting in that clip. Actors have a term for what they're doing there, and it's called indicating. They are absolutely not acting like people would in real life. They're "just" bringing across what they need to bring across. Not that that's so wrong for comedy - it's still used all the time - but since those Hercules moments aren't aiming for the same type of comedy, the comparison is absolutely useless. Not that I'd say those Hercules moments would have good acting... the acting in Disney films very very often is bland or non-existant, but still, you can't compare these two.

Disney's Herc was probably purposefully "gay'd-up". I'd like to think as an homage to the original Steve Reeves movies (a perennial gay icon), but more notably it's shrewd marketing--going after the gobs of disposable $$$ wielded by teenage girls and gay men (who, I've seen it said, have similar consumer habits).

Herc is dull and flat, but I remember thinking Hades was pretty expressive--maybe just by comparison to Herc. Worse than the acting, though, is the ears. They look like a boxer's ears after a lifetime of pummeling. One flick and they'll pop off like Jeff Goldbum's in The Fly.

[quote]Why would a cartoon character want to act like someone in real life? If I was a cartoon character, I'd want to act like a strong caricature of a real person-- just like Gleason or Carney do.[/quote]You can perfectly caricature "real acting" and push it to extremes. It's about the thought process of the character and what a real person would show and, equally as important, wouldn't show. There's nothing that stops you from pushing those to their extremes... But still, that wasn't my point in that particular post. The way they perform in that clip, and the way Ren & Stimpy perform in their cartoons, most likely is the best way to do what they're trying to do. But in a film like Hercules, the goal is very different, at least for this particular character, so the style of performing should adapt to something closer to actual acting. As a result, it's pointless to compare the two.

I'm talking about going through the same processes as real actors go through, and caricaturing those. It's observation twice! Actors observe, cartoonists observe. My friends and family are much more specific and caricatured than any "realistic" animation, sure. But so are good actors. I wasn't saying Hercules was doing it right... I was saying the goals were different, so the means are different, so it's useless to compare these two. But if done right, it's perfectly possible to get something well-observed, specific and caricatured, without indicating (if that's what the particular film requires). It's not because the people doing "realistic" animation haven't done or even tried it yet, that it's impossible.

...But in a film like Hercules, the goal is very different, at least for this particular character, so the style of performing should adapt to something closer to actual acting. As a result, it's pointless to compare the two.

Many Disney characters are always smiling underneath. Look at Herc here. No matter how they really feel, they need to keep up the facade that everything is ok, and they are happy and cheerful. Instead of acting in the moment, it's like they are all sweating to please Walt, elbowing each other to pretend harder that they are having fun, lest they be out of work, so they do the kind of corny mugging he always liked. The life of a Disney character is pretty ingratiating.

>>But if done right, it's perfectly possible to get something well-observed, specific and caricatured, without indicating<<

You might want to define what you are calling "indicating", because that's not what the Honeymooners are doing by a long shot.

And maybe you can show us how to animate realistic animation right, so we can know what you are describing.

I personally have known many people like Ralph Kramden and I find it to be an accurate highly observant and brilliant caricature of a general type, but with extremely specific traits that Gleason added to the type to define him as an individual.

There must be some mystery cartoons out there that I haven't seen yet that has better acting than that. Let me in on the secret!